Casper ex rel. Church v. Sanders

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• implying that'delay of less than two years would not constitute laches
• “That Kraft in fact used the mark in 1980 does not mean that Kraft intended to use mark in 1978.”
• Four examples of consumer confusion sufficient to create a fact dispute regarding actual confusion and “[ajctual consumer confusion is the best evidence of likelihood of confusion.”
• \The precise scope of the category of claims to which the Cuyler standard applies has not been definitively stated by the Supreme Court\
• \it takes very little evidence to establish the existence of the actual confusion factor\
• ambiguous evidence insufficient to establish constitutional malice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).